The polls were impeccably accurate. They predicted a Hillary popular vote win by almost the exact percentage that she won by. The top polls, including NBC news, bTW, had every state well within the margin of error. Only Fox News and Rassmussen missed the calls. The difference between a Trump win and a HIllary win was less than a quarter of a percent of the vote in three states, essentially a margin of 50,000 out of 12 million. No poll would have ever been that accurate. The conservative polls were the laughing stocks.

The evidence is out there, clearly enough for the special counsel to place Trump under direct investigation today. His tweets are proof that there is plenty of evidence, but clearly, there is enough to warrant a full investigation. You keep saying it isn't there, but you are clearly wrong. Trump and his campaign insisted there was "clear evidence" in the Clinton email investigation, because why would the FBI investigate if there wasn't? Can't deny that, he's on record, though most of his core supporters don't pay any attention to his inconsistency, or his total contempt for their intelligence. Aside from the fact that there is indeed some political satisfaction in seeing Republicans squirm, and to enjoy the difficulty they are having with all of their words about the FBI and its investigation of Hillary Clinton. There probably isn't a Republican in Congress now who publicly stated something on a news program about that investigation who doesn't wish they'd just kept quiet back then. Oh, how the tables have turned! And as far as the Nixon comparisons go, well, Nixon was a good guy compared to the Donald. As James Clapper said, this is far worse than Watergate. The political consequences of a failure of the GOP to bring appropriate charges when the investigation concludes will be monumental, if they already aren't going to be.

Any conservative who gripes and whines about all of this is a hypocrite, given all of the screeching, finger pointing and holy horror that the Republicans spewed out over the Clinton email investigation. They insisted that there had to be evidence, or there wouldn't have been an investigation. They squawked like plucked chickens over the airport meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, and made accusations about the justice department that they were sure wouldn't take action even if the investigation did conclude otherwise, in spite of assurances that would not be the case. Peddling "alternative facts" just underlines the hypocrisy.

Yeah, I know several people who don't particularly like him and/or are convinced he's loony, but who have expressed admiration for his deal with the Dems. As long as it didn't drive off an equal number of supporters, I can see how that could generate a bump up.

After the showing of the polls of last year, with Hillary the winner right up to ballot-day, I wonder at your use of them. It's DATA, of course, garbage in, garbage out. The polls have their agendas just like all the rest of the players in the SWAMP. FAKE NEWS rides again!!!

Trump won the electoral votes that put him over the top in just three states--Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, by a little less than 50,000 votes combined, after the provisional ballots were counted. That's a fraction of a percentage of the total vote in each state, less than half of one percent. Most polls have a five point margin of error, and wouldn't you know it, the composite figures were well within that margin of error in virtually every poll used by RCP, except the conservative media polls. They had Clinton with about a two point difference in the popular vote, which was right on target, predicting she would pick up about 3 million more votes than Trump, and she got exactly that. And they pegged virtually every state well within the margin of error. On election day, they had her up by 1.5% in Michigan, 1% in Wisconsin, and 2% in Pennsylvania. So any poll, especially one with the accuracy record of Gallup, that measures Trump's job approval is most likely accurate to well within the margin of error.

Sandy wrote:Trump won the electoral votes that put him over the top in just three states--Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, by a little less than 50,000 votes combined, after the provisional ballots were counted. That's a fraction of a percentage of the total vote in each state, less than half of one percent. Most polls have a five point margin of error, and wouldn't you know it, the composite figures were well within that margin of error in virtually every poll used by RCP, except the conservative media polls. They had Clinton with about a two point difference in the popular vote, which was right on target, predicting she would pick up about 3 million more votes than Trump, and she got exactly that. And they pegged virtually every state well within the margin of error. On election day, they had her up by 1.5% in Michigan, 1% in Wisconsin, and 2% in Pennsylvania. So any poll, especially one with the accuracy record of Gallup, that measures Trump's job approval is most likely accurate to well within the margin of error.

...thus, Trump's victory, while surprising, was not unexpected? Uh...no.

Sandy wrote:Trump won the electoral votes that put him over the top in just three states--Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, by a little less than 50,000 votes combined, after the provisional ballots were counted. That's a fraction of a percentage of the total vote in each state, less than half of one percent. Most polls have a five point margin of error, and wouldn't you know it, the composite figures were well within that margin of error in virtually every poll used by RCP, except the conservative media polls. They had Clinton with about a two point difference in the popular vote, which was right on target, predicting she would pick up about 3 million more votes than Trump, and she got exactly that. And they pegged virtually every state well within the margin of error. On election day, they had her up by 1.5% in Michigan, 1% in Wisconsin, and 2% in Pennsylvania. So any poll, especially one with the accuracy record of Gallup, that measures Trump's job approval is most likely accurate to well within the margin of error.

...thus, Trump's victory, while surprising, was not unexpected? Uh...no.

I would say that it was somewhat surprising, but not wholly unexpected. The MSNBC crew knew, and reported, that the three states Clinton considered part of her "blue wall" were well within the margin of error, and that turnout would be the deciding factor. And they knew which counties and precincts the turnout needed to occur, and by how much.

Whenever a Republican is on the down side of the polling data, conservatives pooh-pooh their accuracy, and you hear all of the rhetoric, "Oh, yeah, the polls are just never accurate." Yet, they point to the same data sets in exactly the same polls when the Democrats are down. If the composite says that Trump's job approval is 34%, which is what it says today, then I would guess that it is within whatever margin of error there is on that poll. Most of these polls, Gallup included, got the election down to well within the margin of error, which is 5% for national polling in most cases. They look at odds and comparisons, and at the actual data from calls and research. The timed coordination of wikileaks dumps of fake papers with polling cycles and with early voting is a suppression factor that can't be accurately measured, nor can the effect of statements like Comey's a week out. But regardless, one thing is clear now, and that is that Trump's low job approval rating is going to drag a lot of Republicans down in 2018.

Early anointing from Dem leadership, yeah, I can go along with that. MSM? Not really. If there was any kind of bias among the MSM, it was toward Sanders, not Clinton, among the Democrats, and it was Trump that got all of their attention, as he wanted it. It was very clear, early on in both the Benghazi hearings and the FBI email investigation that the facts were going to exonerate Clinton in both cases, but they kept the stories driving. When Trey Gowdy announced the results of his investigation, from an obscure location, it didn't even get live coverage. And every time there was a wikileaks dump, or fake news, they jumped on it. The Democratic primaries are much more fair and evenly balanced than the Republicans with their "winner take all" primaries. Democrats split the delegates by the vote. The "superdelegates" favored Hillary, no doubt, but that's probably the only real "early annointing" of her that there was.

Much is made of the 3-million-vote (or was it 5-mil) Clinton plurality in 2016. According to the Philadelphia Tribune of 12 November 2016, black votes totaled just over 15 million. Eighty-eight percent, or some 13,200,000, went for Hillary. This explains the plurality far more than the paltry five million that Hillary actually won by, according to those still suffering everything from heart-burn to Post Traumatic Election Stress Disorder (PTESD). When this is considered in light of the MSM and the pollsters, they look even worse than self-serving. They were unbelievably incompetent in 2016 and certainly not to be trusted now any more than then.

So, Jim, you're saying black votes don't count? That only the opinion of white voters matters? That the opinions and perspectives of African American voters are not as significant as those of white voters? Wow, if that's the case then you are showing your true colors here, and it has zapped any credibility that you had, if you ever had any.

Sandy wrote:So, Jim, you're saying black votes don't count? That only the opinion of white voters matters? That the opinions and perspectives of African American voters are not as significant as those of white voters? Wow, if that's the case then you are showing your true colors here, and it has zapped any credibility that you had, if you ever had any.

Jim's despicably racist remark aside, the polls were well within their margins of error on election night, and I think Gallup actually had Clinton's margin at a percentage that would work out to just about the 3 million votes by which she won the popular vote, which is not, in presidential electoral politics, a "paltry margin." Their job approval ratings of Presidents have been right on target pretty much since they've been doing them, so if they say 34%, then that's pretty close to what it is.

Sandy wrote:Jim's despicably racist remark aside, the polls were well within their margins of error on election night, and I think Gallup actually had Clinton's margin at a percentage that would work out to just about the 3 million votes by which she won the popular vote, which is not, in presidential electoral politics, a "paltry margin." Their job approval ratings of Presidents have been right on target pretty much since they've been doing them, so if they say 34%, then that's pretty close to what it is.

The reason Trump won w/o a plurality of votes was an unintentional gerrymandering effect. This is most easily seen as the large majorities (61.6% Clinton, 32.8% Trump) in the more liberal states such as California, while smaller majorities in other states such as Michigan (47.6% Trump, 47.3% Clinton) who nonetheless received all the electoral college votes from that state. Election Results

We must end the Electoral College winner-take-all approach by, for instance, having proportional Electoral College counts from each state (to the nearest integer). If that would have been in effect Clinton would have received 34 votes (CA) + 8 votes (MI) = 42 votes while Trump would have won 21 votes(CA) + 8 votes (MI) = 29 votes. Haven’t gone through all states in this manner, but I feel confident Hillary would have won if a proportional (nearest integer) were the practice. Of course Hillary would have won a straight popular vote were the practice. Trump was smart to focus on the smaller states that were close Rep vs Dems.

Of course another major problem with this past election is the Soviet created fake news landing on Facebook and other places aimed precisely at often false discreditation of Hillary and the easily duped American electorate pre-conditioned for years by Rush, FoxNews and other right wing pundits funded by powerful corporate sources aimed at keeping their record profits.

I can hear the cry “get over it, she lost”. But we simply must look at our voting system and how foreign cyber forces have attacked our democracy.

And Jim, Black Votes Should Matter. You did not quite say otherwise, but one could easily infer that you believe Blacks had an undeserved impact on the election.

And Jim, Black Votes Should Matter. Whatever gave you that idea? You did not quite say otherwise, Of course, I didn't but it makes you just giddy in self-righteousness to infer that I'm Evil. but one could easily infer Oh how we love to INFER today...so goosepimply/ that you believe Blacks had an undeserved impact You mean they did...sha-a-zz-zam-m-m?!?! on the election.

Hey--gotta hand it to you...you really know how to hurt a guy--and I'm still laughing. Does undeserved impact mean that somebody was beating them up or that they were beating up the election without having been proven worthy? You know...like selling enough votes.

If you weren't inferring that Blacks shouldn't have as much of an impact as they do, then you shouldn't have mentioned it. It's a non-factor. The fact that she got three million more votes than Trump certainly has traumatized him, to the point of psychotic obsession with it. If it could be so easily and blithely dismissed, as you've done, then he wouldn't be so touchy about it.

Sandy wrote:If you weren't inferring that Blacks shouldn't have as much of an impact as they do, then you shouldn't have mentioned it. It's a non-factor. The fact that she got three million more votes than Trump certainly has traumatized him, to the point of psychotic obsession with it. If it could be so easily and blithely dismissed, as you've done, then he wouldn't be so touchy about it.

Ah...those having language problems have...well, language problems. Get a sharp sixth-grader to explain to you the difference between infer and imply, and that might be a start. Actually, I neither inferred nor implied anything...just stated a fact or two. If I shouldn't have mentioned what your said I shouldn't have mentioned, since it's a non-factor, then why did you mention it? I didn't know that Trump is traumatized and has psychotic obsessions. Do you suppose he doesn't know that himself? But then I didn't know that I dismiss things BLITHELY and will try to discover a cure. In the meantime, look up touchy and decide if you may have touchiness election syndrome (TES), in which case a cruise through rattlesnake country might comprise a cure.

Right. That's why Trump spends so much of his time tweeting about them. He doesn't care, and they don't mean anything at this point, but he's sure willing to send the message that they mean everything to him. And the RNC is certainly willing to cite it in every fund raising appeal they send out.

I don't see that anyone said this had anything to do with Hillary Clinton. What it has to do with is that two thirds of the electorate doesn't think Trump is worth a tinker's dam. It sure means something to the RNC, which has sent out a plethora of emails about it, and which is attempting to use it to whip up support for their senate and congressional candidates who are in trouble because of it. I've seen it cited in at least a dozen emails from the PA Republican party, bemoaning it and attempting to use it to raise money.